I seem to be on a comparison kick: A while back I did a massive comparison/contrast between Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and The Empire Strikes Back. Then I followed up with a comparison/contrast of Fantasia and Fantasia 2000.
More recently, I found myself in a discussion weighing the relative merits of two of DreamWorks Animation’s recent features, Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon. How do they stack up? My exhaustive analysis is below! (If Mark Shea thought my Harry Potter/Star Wars post was super-nerdy, wait till he sees this one!)
Warning: Spoilers ahoy!
- Overall scope: Kung Fu Panda offers a funny-animal genre spoof of every kung-fu movie and hero’s journey tale of a chosen one who becomes the ultimate hero. How to Train Your Dragon offers something a bit more ambitious: a quirky hybrid adventure of Vikings and dragons with imaginatively differentiated dragon species. Decision: Dragon.
- Protagonist: Dragon Warrior or Dragon Trainer? In this corner, Jack Black as kung fu geek panda Po; in that corner, Jay Baruchel as aggrieved Viking nerd Hiccup. I like both characters; Po’s boundless enthusiasm is endearing, while Hiccup starts off abrasive but quickly becomes more sympathetic and interesting. I think I like Po better at the beginning, but Hiccup better by the end. I’m going to call this one … too close to call.
- Father figures/mentors: Kung Fu Panda has (a) the Yoda-like turtle Oogway, (b) Dustin Hoffman’s gruff Master Shifu, and (c) Po’s adoptive father Mr. Ping. Dragon has (a) Stoick the Vast, a rather unreconstructed authoritarian stereotype of a father who doesn’t understand his son, and (b) Gobber the Belch, the more sympathetic old trainer. Gobber’s a great character, but Kung Fu Panda packs more father-figure punch. (Alas, neither film has any mother figure — although Dragon does have a great, slightly bawdy joke alluding to Hiccup’s absent mother.) Decision: Panda.
- Peers/supporting cast who initially reject the hero but eventually embrace him: Kung Fu Panda has the awesome but rather under-utilized Furious Five, who are never quite allowed to be as heroic as they’re supposed to be and are never quite given the opportunity to make it up to Po for initially rejecting him. Dragon has Astrid, Hiccup’s friend Fishlegs, and various other types that you remember all too well from gym class, all of whom are eventually won over by Hiccup’s way with dragons. Astrid is a better and better-utilized character than Tigress, and the rest of the peers follow suit. Decision: Dragon.
- Character who represents hero’s biggest challenge: An awkward category lumping together the two most significant characters not mentioned yet: Toothless the dragon and Tai Lung the snow leopard. Tai Lung benefits from Ian McShane’s rich performance (“He’s a panda! You’re a panda!”), but Toothless packs an emotional punch without a word of dialogue. I would call it for Toothless in a second — right up to the climax. In view of the next item below, though, this one’s too close to call.
- Climactic father figure emotional breakthrough (in confrontation with above-named character): Panda has Shifu’s confrontation with Tai Lung; Dragon has Stoick rescuing Toothless. No contest. Stoick diving down to rescue Toothless does bring a tear to my eye. But Shifu’s murmured pre-battle lines to his pupil-turned-opponent—“I have always been proud of you”—full of reget and shame and broken-hearted love, makes me want to bawl like a baby. Yes, I am a sucker; I’m teary just writing about it. Decision: Panda.
- Opening action sequence: Pseudo-anime kung-fu spoof dream fantasy sequence (“I see you like to chew! How about you chew on my fist!”) vs. dragon raid on Viking village. Decision: Panda.
- Initial ritual humiliation training sequence of pathetic hero: Po trying to do kung fu vs. Hiccup trying not to get killed by dragons. Decision: Panda.
- Breakthrough action scene: Dumpling training sequence vs. Toothless and Hiccup’s first flight. The Panda scene is hilarious and brilliantly inventive; the Dragon scene is gorgeous and genuinely thrilling. Too close to call.
- Climactic action sequence: In this corner, Po’s showdown with Tai Lung; in that corner, Hiccup and Toothless take on the monster dragon. The Panda climax offers a number of satisfyingly clever conceits, but the Dragon climax has additional virtues. Hiccup uses teamwork; his peers all have a part to play, rather than being sidelined like the Furious Five. Toothless’s handicap that Hiccup has overcome becomes a liability and generates real suspense. In the end, Toothless selflessly protects Hiccup. And the victory comes at a permanent cost to Hiccup. No contest. Decision: Dragon.
- Other action set pieces: Panda has Tai Lung's escape sequence and his battle with the Furious Five at the rope bridge. Dragon has … whatever you want to cite. Decision: Panda.
- Most glaring unexplained plot point: In Panda, Oogway vanishes in a puff of deus ex machina so that Po will have to confront Tai Lung on his own. In Dragon, Stoick (somehow) hits on the plan of (somehow) forcing the captured Toothless to (somehow) guide the Vikings to the dragon nest. Oogway’s disappearance is much more flagrantly unexplained, but Oogway is a turtle of mystery, whereas Stoick has no reason to think that he can get information out of Toothless. Too close to call.
- Additional coolness: Shifu's superhuman interaction with environment (manipulating air currents to extinguish candles, levitate flower petals, etc.) vs. the Viking book of dragon lore. Too close to call.
So, them’s my thoughts. How about you? Which did you prefer? Any additional considerations? Any challenges to my above analysis? Any calls for me to get professional help? Speak!
Comments
Post a Comment
While Kung Fu Panda had many enjoyable sequences, I think Dragon is the overall better film. It helps fill the void of boys’ adventure stories that currently exists in Hollywood. As to your list, I would consider the flight scene where Hiccup loses his cheat sheet and decides to just wing it as a worthy opponent to Tai Lung’s bridge fight. Also, Dragon had a better soundtrack than Panda.
[SDG] Pierce, you’ve got me on score—I’ve never been as attentive to music as I wish I were. Interesting point about boys’ adventure stories. Another angle to consider.
Hmm.. I guess I’ve thought of these films as being in two distinctly different genres, so a direct comparison like this wasn’t all that possible. I guess I can now concede that a direct comparison is possible, I just don’t know that it was necessary. I mean: can we get a comparison between “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” and “Despicable Me” next? Any takers? Anyone? Hello? Bueller?
As far as comparisons go, this one makes me want to watch both films again—and I’ve seen “Dragon” at least six times in the past month, so that’s quite a feat.
[SDG] The occasion was a discussion of the Oscar’s Best Animated Film category—specifically, (a) whether Kung Fu Panda deserved to win against WALL-E, and (b) whether How to Train Your Dragon deserves to win against Toy Story 3. This led to people saying things like “Kung Fu Panda is a nice movie, but it’s no How to Train Your Dragon”—and vice versa.
I’m not immediately seeing the case for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs vs. Despicable Me—but I did include Cloudy w/Meatballs in my post on How to Train Your Dragon vs. The Secret of Kells. :-)
My grandest act in family film comparison/contrast—a massive four-way analysis of Zathura, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Monster House and Up—is coming sometime next year. (It’s slated to be published by Image, so I have to sit on it until then.)
As for your comment that “As far as comparisons go, this one makes me want to watch both films again”—awesome! My work here is done.
Victor: The occasion was a discussion of the Oscar’s Best Animated Film category—specifically, (a) whether Kung Fu Panda deserved to win against WALL-E, and (b) whether How to Train Your Dragon deserves to win against Toy Story 3. This led to people saying things like “Kung Fu Panda is a nice movie, but it’s no How to Train Your Dragon”—and vice versa.
I’m not immediately seeing the case for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs vs. Despicable Me—but I did include Cloudy w/Meatballs in my post on How to Train Your Dragon vs. The Secret of Kells. :-)
My grandest act in family film comparison/contrast—a massive four-way analysis of Zathura, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Monster House and Up—is coming sometime next year. (It’s slated to be published by Image, so I have to sit on it until then.)
As for your comment that “As far as comparisons go, this one makes me want to watch both films again”—awesome! My work here is done. (D’oh! That reminds me, I forgot to mention my Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 piece in the header! Okay, fixed.)
Nerdelicious!
I await your “grandest act” of comparison with a sort of bewildered intensity. Why you gotta tease us like this?
The most ambitious comparative review I ever undertook remains unhappily unpublished. In it (the thing is something like 4000 words long, if I remember correctly), I examine Downfall and Up as though they were companion pieces. It worked out well, but I ended up losing interest about three quarters of the way through and leaving it for later. A year has gone by and it’s still just sitting there. Oh well.
[SDG] I’d love to see that piece of yours finished, Nick. As for my piece, you can get a hint of it if you read the epilogue to my Up review side by side with my review of The Spiderwick Chronicles.
Any requests for a Bergman contrast-and-evaluate comparison between THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY, WINTER LIGHT and THE SILENCE? For “Bela Tarr’s masterpiece: WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES or THE MAN FROM LONDON (um ... the only two I’ve seen)?”
Is there such a thing as a snob nerd?
[SDG] No. At least, I don’t see how the kind of piece you propose qualifies for nerdy status, at least as regards the Bergman films, which have surely been compared and contrasted countless times in long, thoughtful, critical pieces. Giving careful, analytical thought to art films is not nerdy. Giving careful, analytical thought to pop films is nerdy. At least, that’s my initial take. But feel free to prove me wrong.
I have only seen bits of ‘Dragon’ because they have it on Eternal Play at the pharmacy I visit every other day, but here is what I see: a boy character who is shy and nurturing; a girl character who is an aggressive warrior. Am I a sexist caveman for being irritated at this and for not being particularly interested in showing the movie to my own boys? Kung Fu Panda was really good, and all my boys and girls have watched it 537 million times. Will they watch How To Train Your Dragon 537 million times?
[SDG] Dan, I recommend that you actually watch Dragon start to finish. I think your perception of Hiccup as “shy and nurturing” may be a little skewed. He’s sensitive and thoughtful, and in Viking society he’s much abused and therefore aggrieved and withdrawn, but there’s nothing “shy” about Hiccup. As for “nurturing,” well, he feels for a wounded dragon, yes, but we aren’t exactly talking about hugging small children or something. Hiccup is courageous—just look at the moment where he stretches out a trembling hand and touches Toothless on the snout. What other Viking would dare to try such a thing? Will your kids watch Dragon 573M times? There’s only one way to find out, isn’t there?
In my house the ‘issue’ with How to Train Your Dragon comes with the added issue of how does it compare with its original source? In my house, the books always trump the movies and HTTYD is no different. But, it is a big favorite in that they like the book so much. It is also due to both Hiccup (repeating on the ‘not enough boy heroes’ comment) and Toothless who says nothing and yet so much. While my kids all do like Panda, they are taken more by dragons and it is on the Christmas list. Honestly, it just might be an animal thing; dragons are obviously way more cool than pandas.
Come on dude!
The emotional climax to Dragon is Toothless having to symbolically wound Hickup—the mirror of Hickup wounding him, then helping save him—in order to save his life. THAT’S where the emotion is. Listen to the soundtrack.
[SDG] I agree of course, TMatt—what did I say that you took otherwise? Look under “Climactic action sequence”—I alluded to the climactic moment you mention (slightly more vaguely, because in spite of my spoiler warning I didn’t want to give everything away). The emotion of this moment is a big part of the reason I give Dragon a “no contest” victory over Panda with respect to the climactic action sequence.
Perhaps you’re thinking of my reference to the “Climactic father figure emotional breakthrough.” This doesn’t mean that this moment is the climactic moment of the film—only that it occurs during the climax in a broader sense, the climactic act.
Replies to TMatt, Dan Lord and others embedded above.
Great job SDG. I shared it with my oldest son because he appreciates things like this. Dinner conversation in your house has to be awesome.
One of these days I’m crashing the party, and I definitely have to sit and watch ‘How to train your Dragon’...
:))
Thanks, Steven! We’ll give ‘Dragon’ a go.
Having seen both, I find Dragon quickly draws the viewer in; Panda did not draw me in. (In fact, I found myself quickly drawn away from it.) Dragon shows the Would-be hero, Hiccup, faced with a choice of Mercy or Duty, and choosing mercy. (I’m certain real Vikings would find it terribly un-viking in message.) The whole film is about looking beyond the conflict to find and resolve the cause of the conflict, and the need to take truth to the community. I find Panda possesses a certain Christian Allegory.
Panda, however, is much more mundane, and worse, teaches secular humanism… “the scroll is empty.” Which is the best self-relfexive metaphor I’ve seen in film for a long time… for the message is empty in Panda as well: You are your own source of power, and wisdom is an empty scroll.
“My grandest act in family film comparison/contrast—a massive four-way analysis of Zathura, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Monster House and Up—is coming sometime next year.”
Waiting. With. Bated. Breath!!! :-D
Great article once again! This reminded me of a present comparison going on with a bunch of my friends, and that is the comparison between “Inception” and the “Matrix”, and for some reason a lot of people are picking Inception. Now, while I loved Inception, to me it was definitely no Matrix. It doesn’t have the archetypal oomph that the Matrix has. And let’s not bring up the “coolness” factor. It’s really starting to bug me. It would be nice to see a comparison of the two movies to see what you would think.
R J: I’m not nearly stupid or crazy enough to attempt a systematic comparison/contrast between The Matrix and Inception. At least not until I’ve seen Inception a lot more than three or four times. :-) I will say, though, that I find Inception more stimulating than The Matrix—though I acknowledge the points you make about “archetypal oomph” and “coolness factor.”
To me, the crisis scene when Hiccup faces the Horrible Monster in front of his father and the village is at least equal to the confrontation scene with Tai Lung at the bridge, from the moment Stoick’s ax hits the rail. This is why: before the dragon-on-dragon fight, I was never sure how much Toothless’ “wildness” was subdued. That Toothless hears Hiccup, comes to his aid despite his handicap, and heeds Hiccup’s direction against his own instinct locked Toothless’ devotion for me and set up the fighting pair for the climax. Also, the most mysterious and feared dragon (“Night Fury!”) coming to *protect* Hiccup in front of the village, though it’s beyond their immediate ability to grasp, has dramatic impact that beats out the bridge defeat of the Furious 5. My take.
You’ve got a case.
I am corrected: Monstrous Nightmare, not Horrible Monster. I think I will always get that wrong.
Wow, I’m so surprised to find in your blog on HTTYD & here in this comparison no mention of the feminist agenda in this movie. In fact, as a 34 year old mother, this movie reminds me of all the propaganda I imbibed thirstily as a child that led me to eschew all things motherly, despising the idea, in fact, and taking well over a decade to undo the damage after I married.
Every female in this movie is a warrior, not a nurturer. Even The Elder is female. The girl is the toughest warrior of the teen trainees, and there are nearly as many girls as boys becoming dragon slayers.
Outside of that is the boringly overdone theme of “It’s okay to be different” and more insidiously, “Ignore everything They tell you; nothing is the same.” I had heard enough good Catholics review this movie to think it wasn’t more of the “turn devils into angels” stuff first started with Puff the Magic Dragon (dragons have always been a symbol of the demonic in Christianity), but it was _worse_. The message that kids are smarter than their parents and traditional men are domineering oafs, and that “new men” are far superior as they absorb feminine traits (even while girls are suddenly physically stronger than boys), was pushed loud and clear. Not even subtle.
What have I missed that I could find no one thinking along these same lines when I made the decision to give this movie to my kids for Christmas?
Sorry; I meant “Ignore everything They tell you; They’re wrong about everything; They just don’t understand; what They tell you is evil is really fun; etc.”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.